Washington outlook.

Congressional action on the FY 2005 Interior Appropriations bill--which funds federal land-management agencies like the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management--has disappeared into the messy, election-year federal budget process. That's business as usual; federal policy action tends to be slow in presidential election years, and it's proving true for forestry issues.

There are a few exceptions this year, however. Congress has convened several oversight hearings on implementing last year's Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). It also has begun exploring post-wildfire forest restoration, an area not covered by HFRA. The Bush administration has taken the politically controversial step of proposing major revisions to the roadless area conservation rule adopted by the Clinton administration in 2001.

AMERICAN FORESTS involved itself in these issues by preparing testimony and written comments (see www.americanforests.org) and by helping community-based partners who participated in hearings.

In testimony before a Senate Agriculture Committee oversight hearing on HFRA, we focused on the importance of local collaborative processes to plan, prioritize, and implement hazardous fuel-reduction projects around communities that face wildfire threats. For the legislation to be successful, we insisted, it must use new authorities for local collaboration, such as "community wildfire protection plans" and "multi-party monitoring." Arguing that the present funding for this is inadequate in both Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management budgets, we urged Congress to provide strong funding.

At a hearing explaining post-wildfire forest restoration, held by the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, many questions were asked about the environmental impacts, costs, and benefits of harvesting dead and dying trees after wildfire. Our written testimony sought to shift the focus from controversial post-fire timber harvest to critical post-fire reforestation issues.

Reforestation is an essential step toward restoring forest areas damaged by wildfire. The objective--restoring native tree species to an area--is accomplished through treatments like tree planting or natural regeneration. We believe this critical reforestation has been overlooked in policy discussions in recent years as Congress and the Administration focused on wildfire suppression and pre-fire hazardous fuel reduction. We urged Congress to direct more attention and resources to the fundamental issue of restoring functioning forest ecosystems. By not treating these areas, America risks losing the valuable ecosystem services they provide as forests rather than as brush or barren land.

The post-fire forest restoration hearing gave us an opportunity to call attention to our concerns in recent years with the reforestation process. For example, the reported level of need for post-fire reforestation has not increased as significantly as one would expect. Over the last five years, 7.5 million acres of national forest have burned, yet in FY 2003, the Forest Service said only about 600,000 acres of wildfire-damaged national forest needed reforestation. That number comprises two-thirds of the agency's total national forestland in need of reforestation: 899,000 acres.

Furthermore, the agency conducted those reforestation treatments on only 160,000 acres in FY 2003--about 20 percent of the total. This means a backlog of 740,000 acres for its most recent reporting year. In our testimony, we questioned how data was collected on reforestation needs and accomplishments, the money available for post-fire reforestation, and how the Forest Service uses those funds. We continue to follow these developments.

In July, the Bush administration proposed a rule that would overturn the Clinton administration's 2001 Roadless Area Conservation rule, which provided increased protection for 58 million acres of roadless area in national forests. The new rule would give authority to the nation's governors to develop state-specific proposals for roadless areas that meet the needs of local communities. The Bush administration says it was issued in response to lawsuits and an expressed desire for greater collaboration with states and local communities.

AMERICAN FORESTS generally supported the 2001 rule. Based on our policy agenda for ecosystem restoration and maintenance, we agreed that national forest roadless areas needed greater protection. Roadless areas must continue to provide society with ecological services including clean air and water; climate regulation; and fish, wildlife, and plant habitat. We urged the Forest Service to clarify and commit to provisions for working collaboratively with communities to address local issues.

We are concerned about the Bush administration's roadless proposal. First, it would give states too much authority to develop proposed actions on national forests; federal lands are managed to serve the national interest. Second, state governments may not have the resources and staff or the interest to put together a local collaborative process on this issue. The Forest Service should lead in developing local collaborative processes. Many of its new legislative authorities call for more local collaboration; the agency must commit resources and staff time to learning to do this.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Third, we are concerned that if states do not develop and offer proposals to the Forest Service, the level of roadless area protection would revert back to existing national forest plans, negating the increased protections in the 2001 rule. We are developing more detailed comments on the Bush administration's proposed rule and will update you in the next issue.